... between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born. That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.

What very few noted was that the authors of the study itself explained why the numbers aren't what they seem:

In their report, published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, Raymond and Grimes write that the findings aren't surprising given that women are pregnant for a lot longer when they decide to have a baby and so have more time to develop complications.

If we want an accurate comparison of risk, we must compare on a week-by-week basis.
That is, during any given week of pregnancy, is it safer to be pregnant, or is it safer to be pregnant and have an abortion?

The answer to that one is obvious.
Any unnecessary surgical procedure adds risk.
Surgical abortion cures no disease, it is biologically unnecessary.

Thus, any woman who undergoes an abortion during ANY week of pregnancy has actually INCREASED her risk of morbidity and mortality over what it would normally have been for that week of pregnancy.

Put simply, a pregnant woman at 8 weeks is safer during that week to simply live as she is then to have an abortion during that week.

In fact, the risks of abortion climb so rapidly that after week 12, it is actually safer for the woman to carry the full 36 weeks to term than it is for her to have an abortion at week 13 or later.

The only way to get the numbers that this study gets is to weight the abortion scale heavily with early abortions, and then compare that 8-week procedure rate to something which is entirely different - a 36-week long marathon.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

In possibly the only united political front the USCCB has presented on any subject in over forty years, America's episcopate has universally decided to fight Kathleen Sebelius' ruling that all Catholic organizations have to pay for employee's contraceptives in their insurance coverage.

As Michael Voris points out, it is also kind of sad and pathetic, but that's not the point of this essay.

While Michael Voris is dead on accurate, he hasn't yet pointed out the logical conclusion.

The 2012 Elections
That's right, they're coming this year.
Who knew?

And what happens if, despite the fears of conservatives across the nation, Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected?

You see, the bishops have not publicly excommunicated a sitting politician since the civil rights movements of the 1960s. Since the media disliked discrimination, violence against blacks was judged a mortal sin, but since the media didn't dislike sexual misadventures, contracepting or killing children in the womb was just a social faux pas that could be overlooked in the pursuit of greater political harmony.

So, for the last fifty years, the bishops haven't yet declared a single politician excommunicate over issues of contraception or abortion. Indeed, as I document, they have gone out of their way to say they don't have the right to do such a thing. But it's not for want of candidates.

Since today is the kick-off for Catholic Schools Week across the nation, let us pause and meditate on the glory that is the Catholic school. Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Senator Kerry, Mario Cuomo, the thankfully deceased Ted Kennedy, and countless other pro-contraceptive, pro-abortion politicians were all taught in Catholic schools. In his entire career, Barack has gotten only one honorary degree, and that one from Notre Dame. Huzzah for Catholic schools!

Because of Despite their sterling Catholic education, most of the members of that previous list are definitely candidates for eventual excommunication. By their actions, they have already objectively chosen hell.

The question is, given that he is clearly not going to change his policy, if Obama is re-elected will the bishops be compelled to eventually point out the possibility of excommunication to any of the Obama-bot CINO's in a more formal way?

In short, when do the bishops formally excommunicate these fine products of conception Catholic education, informing them that they are, objectively speaking, going to hell?

There is no telling, of course.
I will only note in passing that the winter has been unusually mild.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

As an author and publisher, I have some small interest in the problem.
Unfortunately, I think we are coming to the end of the copyright age.

The world has seen three great revolutions in the dissemination of knowledge:
1) the transition from oral to written language
2) the transition from written language to the printing press
3) the transition from the printing press to the Internet

Each transition changed the way authorship was viewed.

Socrates and Plato were famously placed on either side of the oral-written transition. Socrates wrote nothing, everything he taught was orally transmitted. It fell to Plato to make use of the new writing technology to record Socrates' thoughts. There was no such thing as copyright law.

Indeed, although the written word became a normal means of communication, copyright law did not naturally follow the development of writing. Literacy was self-controlling because it was a very expensive hobby in terms of training, material and technique. External controls were largely unnecessary.

As a result, most literate societies did not recognize copyright law or anything like it. Pretty much anyone who was literate could make copies of anything they could lay their hands on. When most literate people spent good portions of their time hand-copying works so as to make them available to other literate people, authorship was not highly prized and the concept of publishing was a non sequitor.

The Rise of the Authorand His Copyright
It was only with the rapid dissemination of information and of literacy made possible by the printing press that ideas like authorship, publishing and copyright began to make a lot of sense. The printing press drove down the cost of literacy, placing it within reach of a much larger segment of the population.

The ability to rapidly spread printed works meant that literate people could actually take time to savor previously unknown authors. That is, it was actually possible for a staggeringly large number of authors to make names for themselves by their writings alone.

Both kings and the Church recognized that the ability to print material contained within it the ability to rapidly spread treasonous or unorthodox ideas. Furthermore, since printers required presses, it was fairly easy to find and regulate the spread of ideas at the point of production - at the printer. Thus, both kings and the Church had good reason to implement printing and copyright laws.

The printing press was invented in 1453.

By 1500, Pope Alexander VI had issued his first bull against the unlicensed printing of books, and the Index of Forbidden Books followed by 1559. Most European countries had instituted some kind of copyright law about the same time that the Pope was issuing his bull.

450 years later, the cost of printing and the dissemination of books had become so inexpensive, that the Church saw the handwriting on the wall. The Index was abolished June 14, 1966.

By 1966, the Church had realized there was no real way to control the production or the consumption of books. While the nihil obstat and imprimatur still remain as remnants of this attempt at content and production control, both are now pro forma exercises in marketing without any real expectations of doctrinal utility or applicability. The only reason a publisher seeks them today is to appeal to a certain niche market - they are now marketing tools.

The End of the Author and Copyright
It is interesting that the Index was abolished just thirty years before the next revolution in communications technology smashed the old printing model to smithereens. Today, the Internet makes the spread of ideas almost instantaneous. Whether for good or ill, however, there is no way to regulate the spread of ideas.

And when I say there is no way, I don't mean, "there is no good way."
I mean: There. Is. No. Way.
It cannot be done.

If it is in electronic format, anyone can copy anything for any reason anywhere.
Everyone with a PC, heck, everyone with a cell phone, can be a point of copy and redistribution.
Today, cell phones can carry 32 GB or more of memory - more than enough to hold several full-length movies. This capacity will only increase with time.

As a result, I strongly doubt that copyright law is very much longer for this world.

Laws against adultery and fornication fell when contraception made both so prevalent and so socially acceptable that it was no longer possible to maintain the facade that the laws served a purpose. If society embraces contraception, it cannot hold onto the idea that fornication or adultery should be outlawed. Indeed, it cannot hold onto the idea that homosexuality, necrophilia, bestiality or pedophilia should be outlawed. The first has already been legalized, the rest soon will be.

Similarly, if society embraces the rapid spread of ideas which computers make possible, it will no longer be able to hold onto the idea of copyright.

Computer geeks like to say "information wants to be free."

They are correct. People want information more than they want food. The Internet is turning large swaths of information into a commodity like electricity or running water. The best anyone can hope for is to meter usage (thus, the fee to connect to the Internet). Beyond that, I can no more control how you choose to use information than I can control how you use the electricity or water that is piped into your home.

If I can figure out a way to take tap water or my electrical outlet and turn what pours from it into cash, you cannot stop me. The same will be true for the Internet and the information that pours in through that portal. Information used to be attached to personalities, but that connection will only become more tenuous with time.

If the 1960's gave birth to the Free Love generation, the 2010's will give birth to the Free Information generation.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The following month two measures were announced at
the annual Party Rally in Nuremberg, becoming known as the Nuremberg
Laws. Both measures were hastily improvised (there was even a shortage
of drafting paper so that menu cards had to be used) and Jewish experts
from the Ministry of the Interior were ordered to Nuremberg by plane.

The first law, The
Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, prohibited
marriages and extra-marital intercourse between “Jews ” (the
name was now officially used in place of “non-Aryans ”) and
“Germans ” and also the employment of “German ”
females under forty-five in Jewish households. The second law, The
Reich Citizenship Law, stripped Jews of their German citizenship
and introduced a new distinction between “Reich citizens ”
and “nationals.”

The Nuremberg Laws by their general nature formalized
the unofficial and particular measures taken against Jews up to 1935.
The Nazi leaders made a point of stressing the consistency of this legislation
with the Party program which demanded that Jews should be deprived of
their rights as citizens.

"Now, on the heels of the NDAA, a new bill is making its way through Congress: the Enemy Expatriation Act that would make the controversy about the NDAA null and void by simply stripping Americans of their American citizenship, should they be accused of associating with government-deemed terrorist organizations. "

Look, as Ed knows, all employment in a diocese is at-will employment by the bishop (or archbishop, in this case). Bishop can fire, or cause to be fired, anyone he wants at any time. This is most especially true of the faculty at his own seminary. This is even more especially true of lay employees.

The whole point of having lay diocesan employees is to provide CYA for the ordained men. If anything bad happens in the parish or diocese, you fire the closest lay person and claim little to no knowledge of the requisite shenanigans. Failing that, you claim the lay employee acted without proper episcopal authority. Either way, if a lay person can take the fall, s/he does.

Like every lay employee, Ed knows how the game is played.
He loses his phoney-baloney job at Sacred Heart Seminary if he doesn't follow the archbishop's directives.
He is unlikely to get hired anywhere else if he has a reputation for not backing his own bishop's plays.

So, if the archbishop directs him to flay someone alive, Ed's personal opinion is suddenly and spontaneously likely to be very antagonistic towards the intended victim.

Now, any analysis of Ed'sarticlesshows he's been actively trying to obfuscate the Voris/RCTV issue. Throughout the entire RCTV/Voris affair, he has worked hard to cover the bishop's... ahem... assets.
It's almost as if he had a hand in formulating the pronouncements, or was called in and given a heads-up that this was coming out, so he better have some good support for what the ordained men had decided to do.

After all, he spends his first whole post saying "this is a matter of canon law", an implicit appeal to his own authority as a canon lawyer. Appeals to authority, by the way, are the weakest of all logical arguments. That's the best he has to open with, which says something right there.

Even more informative is his "analysis" - he never bothers to define the most important phrase in the dispute "competent ecclesial authority."

Why not?

Well, Abraham Lincoln tells the story of the man who had a green stump in his field. It was too big to pull out, too wet to burn out and too blessed hard to split. So, he solved the problem by plowing around it and pretending it wasn't there.

Ed's in the same fix. If he defined "competent ecclesial authority", we would immediately realize that the Archbishop of Detroit, his employer, is not competent to strip RCTV of the word "Catholic". Ed can hardly point that out on his blog - he would have to look for a new job if he did - so he plows around it and hopes no one notices.

He essentially does the same thing in his second post. Even as he spends a lot of time pretending to discuss "competent ecclesial authority", you will notice that at NO POINT does he mention the fact that his boss is pronouncing on a business entity which is not in AOD diocese.

The Archbishop of Detroit trying to strip RCTV of the word "Catholic" is similar to the Archbishop of Detroit trying to strip Notre Dame of the word "Catholic."

At NO POINT does Ed mention the fact that in both cases, the archbishop of South Bend might (rightly) take issue with the attempt.

But, if cakes are to be taken, I think his third post is probably the piece de resistance. Ed goes on this extended tirade about the Internet... as if it matters. Ed might as well have created an extended soliliquy concerning the difficulty of controlling the flow of books into various bookstores around the diocese. It's about as pointless. He knows perfectly well that it is the location of the publisher that is at issue, not the method by which the content is distributed.

So why does an otherwise intelligent man do this?
Well, as Ed also knows, if you can't awe them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.

God bless the man's chutzpah, he actually sends people to look for a non-existent canon on Internet distribution in a wonderfully veiled attempt to appeal to his own authority, or better, that of his boss.
It's a marvelous case of misdirection, and my hat is off to him for thinking it up.

Actually, of course, the Internet doesn't present any more difficulties to canon law than book distribution does. The Church solved the question of producers versus distributors several hundred years ago. Canon law deals with who produces the material, and doesn't spend a lot of time with how it is distributed, if only because the Church recognizes that She has no stinkin' control over how it is distributed and never will.

This, of course, goes double for the Internet.

So, if I, while living in Dallas, wrote a completely heretical book called "Catholic Interpretations of Scripture", and had a publisher in Tuscaloosa publish it, and if the publisher's name was "Incredibly Orthodox Catholic Books", the bishop of Dallas would still have no right to attempt to strip the name "Catholic" from my publisher's business because the publisher is in Tuscaloosa, not Dallas.

Even if the book showed up in Dallas bookstores, and even if I live in Dallas diocese, it still gives the bishop of Dallas no authority over a business in Tuscaloosa. Bishop of Dallas may have an opinion, of course, and it's lovely if he does, but that and a dollar won't get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks, no matter how much his canon lawyers insist otherwise.

And, of course, NO ONE is saying that either Michael Voris or RCTV has taught anything heretical.
They apparently take issue with it because it is (a) true and (b) not nice.

Newsflash:
The Truth is not Nice.
The Truth will set you free.

Now, I'm sure Ed Peters is honest in the majority of his dealings, and many of them probably involve canon law. But in this particular case, he deliberately misrepresents the law in order to (a) make his bishop look good and (b) keep his job.

Either that, or he is a complete idiot.
And I'm far too charitable to think Ed Peters is at all stupid.

I actually feel sorry for the man - he's been dealt a completely rotten hand by his archbishop, and he has to publicly prostitute himself in order to keep his job and make his mortgage payments. All the other canon lawyers in the nation are looking at him, shaking their heads glumly and saying, "There but for the grace of God, go I." And the poor man KNOWS it.

I'll ignore his repeated appeal to his own authority and cut straight to the meat.Well, what passes for meat.To be honest, I can't believe he even ran this one up the flagpole, but here it is:

"Is it seriously to be contended that a local Church has no authority over local Catholics writing, editing, producing, and promoting extensive media programming copiously labeled as “Catholic” this and “Catholic” that, if the registered owner of the enterprise happens, conveniently, not to be Catholic?"

Well, yeah, Ed, that happens all the time. For instance, let's say a Roman Catholic is hired to work for an Anglican organization that calls itself Catholic - Anglicans do that, you know. They call themselves Catholic.

Maybe we should whip them or something?
I don't know.
Ask your archbishop.
I'm sure he'll have an opinion.

Anyway, the local archbishop may have something to say to that local Roman Catholic, but he has NOTHING to say to the company he works for that calls itself Catholic. Archbishop can't very well tell the company to stop using the word "Catholic" as archbishop has no jurisdiction the Anglicans recognize, even if those Anglicans live in Detroit.

But it gets worse.

You see, the last I heard, it wasn't a sin for a Roman Catholic to work for an Anglican Catholic, so I can't imagine what archbishop would have to say to his Roman Catholic subject... Attaboy! perhaps?
A compliment on the tie he wore to work might be in order.
But, as long as he isn't writing heresy.... what would such an archbishop say to such a Catholic?
And why would an archbishop waste time on this problem when he's got so many pro-abort politicians and parish staff members he could be correcting?

Ed, I don't have to tell you that the Code says:

"Can. 216 Since
they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have
the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own
undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no
undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent
ecclesiastical authority."

Michael Voris didn't undertake to start RCTV, so he hasn't violated the canon.
South Bend has no complaints about RCTV, so they have obeyed their bishop and they're fine, too.
Which means Voris isn't working for a company that is under any bishop's jurisdictional ban.

Now, AOD is publicly ticked off at Voris, but that seems to be AOD's problem.
Unless AOD wants to pretend that it has power in South Bend?

Anyway, Ed is still sad, because Ed still contemplates a terrible prospect.
Terrible, I tell you.

"For that matter, what if Brammer were to transfer his interest in RCTV to a non-Catholic, or to a conglomerate, maybe one overseas, or if he or another utilize(d) any of a half dozen id-masking options common in cyberspace?"

Oh, HORRORS!!!
Like that couldn't have been done a decade ago, or three decades ago or 50 years ago or even a century ago (apart from the ID-masking, which is no different from setting up a shell company).

How is any one of these, or even all of them together, a new problem, Ed?
Is canon law so fragile that it NEVER faced such a set of circumstances before?
Changed ownership of a company is a new one to you, is it?
Never heard of a shell company (Hint: it doesn't involve eggs. Really.)?

I averred before that Ed Peters is not a stupid man.
He obviously holds a somewhat lower opinion of the rest of us.

I would suggest to Ed that he get out more, but given how well his defense of AOD is going and how high unemployment is under this regime, that wouldn't be a nice thing to wish on anyone.

So, continue to pray for him.
The poor man seems to be running out of straws.

Friday, January 13, 2012

When Bishop Ochoa was named Bishop of Fresno on Dec 1, 2011, the clock started ticking.
He had 60 days to canonically take possession of his new see.

Can. 418 §1. Upon certain notice of transfer, a bishop must claim the diocese to which he has been transferred (ad quam) and take canonical possession of it within two months. On the day that he takes possession of the newdiocese, however, the diocese from which he has been transferred (a qua) is vacant.

On January 11, 2012, Bishop Ochoa decided to use the few remaining days he has, and use the powers of the diocesan administrator (notice: he does not appear to have the powers of the Bishop of El Paso any longer), to lay a civil lawsuit against Father Michael Rodriguez for misappropriation of funds.

Can. 418 §2. Upon certain notice of transfer until the canonical possession of the new diocese, a transferred bishop in the diocese from which he has been transferred:1/ obtains the power of a diocesan administrator and is bound by the obligations of the same; all power of the vicar general and episcopal vicar ceases, without prejudice to ⇒ can. 409, §2;

It is unfortunate that Bishop Armando Ochoa, Administrator of the Diocese of El Paso and no longer our bishop, (emphasis added) has decided to pursue legal action against me.

Now, since Bishop Ochoa has not yet formally taken possession of Fresno, the see of El Paso is not considered a vacant see. But, Father Rodriguez seems to have a point in saying that technically, Ochoa is no longer Bishop of El Paso.

And, if Father Rodriguez is correct, Bishop Ochoa may have mis-represented himself in a public lawsuit.

Worse, Ochoa may well lose standing as a claimant in the lawsuit within the next two weeks, since he will no longer be part of the diocese.

Once Ochoa has formally left, the only power in the diocese will be that of the diocesan administrator, as El Paso waits for a new bishop. What power does a diocesan administrator have?

Can. 428 §1. When a see is vacant, nothing is to be altered.
§2. Those who temporarily care for the governance of the diocese are forbidden to do anything which can be prejudicial in some way to the diocese or episcopal rights. They, and consequently all others, are specifically prohibited, whether personally or through another, from removing or destroying any documents of the diocesan curia or from changing anything in them.

Clearly, Ochoa wanted to pursue Father Rodriguez in the few days left to him. But is beginning a civil legal action prejudicial to the episcopal rights of the as-yet-unnamed incoming bishop? Does Ochoa have the canonical power to lay this lawsuit?

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

1) About a decade ago, Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated a whole bunch of people. Specifically he legislated that anyone who was a member of: Call to Action, Planned Parenthood, Catholics for Free Choice, Hemlock Society, the SSPX and the Freemasons was subject to automatic excommunication.

His decision was appealed to Rome and upheld (and this despite the fact that Rome has repeatedly held members of the SSPX as NOT being excommunicate).

Despite this confirmation of his authority, no other bishop has followed his lead, nor has any other American bishop publicly withheld the Eucharist from members of these groups.

Indeed, although Bruskewitz has publicly said he would refuse the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, other bishops have publicly disputed the wisdom of taking such a course of action.

2) The Bishop of Amarillo has asked his brother bishops not to provide any support for Fr. Frank Pavone's ministry.

Again, other bishops in the US have not only not supported Amarillo, they have actively come out and supported Pavone, despite the fact that the Bishop of Amarillo would appear to have pretty clear authority over Pavone (his very own diocesan priest) and Pavone's ministry, at least to the extent that Pavone is head of the organization and subject to episcopal authority.

3) Recently, the Archbishop of Detroit publicly states that he doesn't think Michael Voris' RealCatholicTV should be using the word "Catholic" in it's title.

In 2006, Voris petitioned for diocesan approval of his media and his own non-profit organization (St. Michael's Media).

Apparently, AOD dillied, dallied, ooohhhed and ahhhhed so long that Voris got tired of it. By 2008, Voris had started working for a different organization (RealCatholicTV).

Now, St. Michael's Media provided RCTV with content and with Voris - but that's all it provided. RCTV is NOT the same as St. Michael's Media. In fact, RCTV isn't even domiciled in the same state, much less the same diocese. RCTV is a DBA for Greenstar Enterprises, a for-profit corporation headed by Marc Brammer who lives in South Bend, Indiana.

So, to sum up the business side:
St. Michael's Media is non-profit and based in Ferndale, Michigan.
Greenstar Enterprises, DBA RCTV, is for-profit and based in South Bend, Indiana.

These are two entirely different business entities,
in two entirely different dioceses
in two entirely different states.

And, as AOD admits, RCTV never attempted to get anything from AOD.
Which makes sense, since RCTV has NO relationship to St. Michael's Media and is not under AOD's jurisdiction to begin with.

In short, RCTV is really none of AOD's business.

So, to sum up the archbishop's case:
AOD ruled on a five-year old request initiated by a completely different business. The archbishop attempted to apply his rule to a business which has zero ties to AOD, which had never petitioned AOD for anything, and was never under AOD's jurisdiction.

Conclusion
What are good Catholics to make of this?

Well, I'm sure canon lawyers can blather on about what should or shouldn't happen, but the facts are these:

The Church has made no clear ruling on how to handle the Internet and it's work,

The Internet issue actually has little to nothing to do with RCTV and Voris in this instance,

The opinion of one Archbishop is interesting but irrelevant,

Because the Archbishop is apparently running his mouth about a business entity which is not under his jurisdiction.

Canon lawyers can write lots and lots of blog posts discussing the niceties of what the Church might eventually rule or even what they think the Church should eventually rule, but that and a dollar still won't get you coffee at Starbucks.

Now, if I were being cynical, given the facts on the ground, I would say Sacred Heart Seminary - which is, by purest coincidence, domiciled in AOD - and AOD's employee, canon lawyer Peters, seem to be very interested in brown-nosing AOD's archbishop by snarking about all kinds of nonsense which makes zero actual sense. Especially since Peters may well have contributed to AOD's weird decree.

But since I'm not that cynical, I would clearly never say such a thing.

Keep dancing, Ed.
I'm sure we're all entertained.

UPDATE:
You know, it occurs to me that there was a similar dust-up in South Bend a couple of years ago, involving the priestly president of Notre Dame and the gift of an honorary law degree to some baby-killing yokel or other. Seems to me a lot of bishops (that is, more than the one Archbishop we have here) also pronounced, without invitation, their public disgust about the situation in South Bend. And, as I recall, there were ZERO repercussions for ND's good Father Jenkins in that scenario.

Now, why would that be?

Well, because the bishop of South Bend chose not to impose any penalty on Father Jenkins.
No other bishop imposed any penalty because... wait for it... they had no jurisdiction to do so.
And, if I recall correctly, Rome said exactly nothing about any of it.

With RCTV, we have an organization which not only hasn't killed a baby, it hasn't even advocated the death of anyone's baby. RCTV hasn't disobeyed their own bishop. Instead, someone else's bishop is upset with them.

For people who blather about how you are supposed to obey your own bishop, RCTV has obeyed theirs, so what's your beef, exactly?

Monday, January 09, 2012

"Is there sexual intercourse in Heaven? ... Intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. Could we speculate about what that could be? It could certainly be spiritual intercourse ... this spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man ... The relationship may not extend to all persons of the opposite sex, at least not in the same way or degree. ... I think there must be some special "kindred souls" in Heaven that we are designed to feel a special sexual love for. ... But would it ever take the form of physical sexual intercourse? Since there are bodies in Heaven, able to eat and be touched, like Christ's resurrection body, there is the possibility of physical intercourse"

“Are there animals in Heaven? The simplest answer is: Why not? How irrational is the prejudice that would allow plants (green fields and flowers), but not animals into Heaven.” Regarding pets, he writes: “Would the same animals be in Heaven as on earth? ‘Is my dead cat in Heaven?’ Again, why not? God can raise up the very grass; why not cats? Though the blessed have better things to do than play with pets, the better does not exclude the lesser.”

So, the obvious question arises. Do we have sex with dogs in heaven?

"Wait!" I hear you cry, "That's disgusting!"

Oh, you unenlightened non-Westians who haven't entered the higher knowledge are all alike, aren't you? Always ready to condemn things you don't understand!

Don't mock the good Dr. Kreeft.

He recognizes there is no marriage and no procreation in heaven.

He simply argues that physical intercourse is a possibility.

Not a big stretch, right?

Obviously, physical intercourse with other "kindred souls" (plural) can only be possible in heaven, if there is no such thing as illicit sex in heaven. And there can be no illicit act in heaven, because everything in heaven is lawful.

Sex with one woman not your wife is not fornication, because there is no marriage in heaven.

Sex with multiple women isn't polygamy.

This is all holy, according to Kreeft, so this kind of polyamory is fine, perfectly licit, nothing wrong with it.

Now, part of Kreeft's argument rests on the obvious fact that we retain our bodies and therefore our genitalia. Obviously heavenly dogs would likewise retain their genitalia.

Another part of his argument is that sexual union is just a full participation in universal charity. You can't argue against charitable sex, right?

Of course, if sex is merely one great way to express universal charity, and if everything in heaven participates in the universal charity of God, then dogs would certainly participate in universal charity, right?

So, to paraphrase Dr. Peter Kreeft, "How irrational is the prejudice that would allow me to have sex with other men, women and children but not to have sex with dogs, cats and sheep?"

Specifically, isn't it interesting how male Westians endorse boinking lots of heavenly women or engaging in some kind of group sex thing?

I mean, ladies, do you find it enticing to think that you can have sex with dozens, hundreds or thousands of men, women, dogs and cats in heaven?

Perhaps I'm prejudiced from excessive study of Islam and rejection of Westianism, but this is a pretty male version of heaven. I'm not sure women would really be "up" for it, if you get my drift.

Is their precedent for Kreeft's unique vision?

Well, yes, there is.

Back in the 8th and 9th century, Muslim armies were constantly besieging Christian Constantinople.

Now, it should be noted that Muslims hate iconography, the depiction of people in artwork. They see it as an offense against God.

So, it was no coincidence that during this very period, the Christian rulers of Constantinople fell into the heresy of iconoclasm. During this heresy, Byzantine Christians destroyed thousands of icons and statues of saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary and even a legendary statue of Jesus himself.

Monks, nuns and other religious who opposed this attack on sacred images were cruelly oppressed and tortured. Their tongues were torn out, their eyes were pierced or torn from their sockets. The iconoclasts beheaded - notice the beheading - the Patriarch himself for daring to oppose this wanton destruction.

"The iconoclast movement never spread to largely illiterate Western Europe; its madness consumed only the segment of Christendom that boasted the highest literacy rate. Artists fled for their lives from Byzantium, heading for the western court of Charlemagne whose largely illiterate courtiers welcomed them with open arms."

Likewise, it is worthwhile to remember that the Christian faithful of Ephesus were the heroes of that Council. It was their prayers, their parades, their constant invocation of Mary, Mother of God that helped the bishops of that Council recognize that Archbishop Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was a heretic for denying Mary's true maternity of God. For the whole of his life, even after being exiled to a monastery like Maciel, Archbishop Nestorius insisted that he was orthodox.

Dr. Peter Kreeft's teaching is not found in the writings of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church.

His is a teaching of Islam, not of Christianity.

Kreeft, of course, is now a valued instructor at the Theology of the Body Institute, along with Dr. Janet Smith and the notorious Chris West, all vigorously sponsored by Matt Pinto's Ascension Press.

This is where Westianism leads you.

Do you really want to go there?

UPDATE:I had a further thought about this.

If we are supposed to have sex with everyone in heaven, will women, especially nuns, have to stay in Purgatory until they accept the idea?

Is morality on earth different than morality in heaven?

And what of the 144,000 virgins who sing the song to the Lamb in Revelations 14:1-4? Is that verse just wrong, or are they singing because they are finally going to get laid?

"Krazy as a Kreeft" may become a watchword among Catholics.Now I'm going to have to pull his endorsement of my TOB book, or write a disclaimer pointing out that he endorsed it before he went publicly insane. This is depressing.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Well, now that the 2012 Presidential election is over, we can look back with longing on what might have been.

Of course, no one wanted Obama.
Mitt Romney was just Barack in white face.
And Rick Santorum sold out a pro-life Republican (Toomey) to Arlen Specter, the pro-death convert to the Democrats, one of the slimiest pieces of trash in Congress. To add insult to injury, not only couldn't we trust Santorum to stand by his pro-life values when the going got rough, he also turned out to be the biggest idiot on the Republican stage when it comes to economic policy. With Ron Paul in the race, that said something.

Obama, Romney or Santorum.

Larry, Moe or Curly.

Was there any reason to vote in 2012?

Even now, years later, as we languish under Obama's iron fist, I'm still hard pressed to think of one.

It's just as well that we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about voting any more.